Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    13 Jan '09 00:19 / 1 edit
    It's high time RHP adopted rating floors similar to what the US Chess Federation uses.

    The idea is this: After X games at a certain rating class, a player's rating cannot fall 200 points below that class.

    Example: Player A's rating remains over 1900 for 30 games. This establishes a rating floor of 1700. His rating can no longer fall below 1700 no matter how many games he loses.

    Benefits:
    - Deters sandbagging. Once you perform at a 1900 level, you cannot tank your rating to win banded tournaments U1700 or lower.
    - Keeps rating more accurate in the event of a forced absence from the site. No more 2000 players coming back as 1200s after an absence, and terrorizing the lower-grade tourneys, clan challenges, etc.

    In the unlikely event that a player's true strength drops more than 200 points, a request can be made to site admins, or game mods, to lower the rating floor. The claim should not be accepted unless that player has been stuck on their rating floor for a long time [and not due to absence!].
  2. 13 Jan '09 00:45
    I agree. I'd love to subscribe and play some banded tourneys, but the sandbaggers dissuade me. I'm still far from knowing my "true" rating, but I'm on the way up and would prefer not to clobbered by someone playing in a tourney for people 400 points lower than his true rating.
  3. Standard member Lukerik
    Stick your hands up
    13 Jan '09 00:53
    A nice proposal, but perhaps it would be wise to restrict the floor to tournament entry ratings. If I disappear should I not be punished? Time is an inherent part of chess after all.

    Also a lot of members, subscribers included, complain when people timeout and extend games needlessly. Would a lack of ratings loss encourage this?

    Would a timeout that doesn't count ratingswise for the timeoutee similarly be discounted for the timeouter?
  4. Standard member Lukerik
    Stick your hands up
    13 Jan '09 01:04
    Originally posted by HolyT
    I agree. I'd love to subscribe and play some banded tourneys, but the sandbaggers dissuade me. I'm still far from knowing my "true" rating, but I'm on the way up and would prefer not to clobbered by someone playing in a tourney for people 400 points lower than his true rating.
    God don't let that dissuade you! For every sandbagger there's prison and a series of timeouts, surprise losses against weaker players and opponents who improve during the tourney and end up winning. Banded tourneys are great fun and not all of them are marred by sandbagging, though I recognise that it is sometimes a problem.

    I think any serious rating floor proposition has to have agreement on where we set the floor. I've spent most of my time about 1550ish, but have peaked at 1781 and rarely beat anyone over 1600.

    I play mostly clan games these days where it's irrelevant but lots of people have a far greater natural variation than me and it could really hamper their enjoyment of the site.
  5. 13 Jan '09 02:07
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    It's high time RHP adopted rating floors similar to what the US Chess Federation uses.

    The idea is this: After X games at a certain rating class, a player's rating cannot fall 200 points below that class.

    Example: Player A's rating remains over 1900 for 30 games. This establishes a rating floor of 1700. His rating can no longer fall below 17 ...[text shortened]... that player has been stuck on their rating floor for a long time [and not due to absence!].
    i like an idea of a rating floor i do. but what happens to the other persons rating when xe is losing all there games through timeout? it it's locked at 1700 do the people winning the games through t/o get a rating boost as if they were playing against a 1700 player?

    plus at the lower levels you often see people who have genuine rating gaps of 200-400 below there highest rating. with the 200 point system they're stuck on a higher rating than normal at some stages. you can't go and run to an admin to get your rating changed, they will be inundated with requests.

    i think there should be different gaps for different ratings. a 2000 player is rarely going to drop below 1800 because of the difference in these ratings but a 1400 player could easily drop to below 1200 with a bad run.
  6. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    13 Jan '09 16:43
    Originally posted by Lukerik
    A nice proposal, but perhaps it would be wise to restrict the floor to tournament entry ratings. If I disappear should I not be punished? Time is an inherent part of chess after all.

    Also a lot of members, subscribers included, complain when people timeout and extend games needlessly. Would a lack of ratings loss encourage this?

    Would a timeout that doesn't count ratingswise for the timeoutee similarly be discounted for the timeouter?
    The point of ratings is to show how strong a player you are relative to other rated players. Disappearing from the site for a few months generally does not lower your real playing strength by several hundred rating points. Thus, the rating should not go down so far either.

    With rating floors, the game dragger cannot deliberately tank their rating to deprive a hated rival of their due rating points.

    No.
  7. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    13 Jan '09 16:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by trev33
    i like an idea of a rating floor i do. but what happens to the other persons rating when xe is losing all there games through timeout? it it's locked at 1700 do the people winning the games through t/o get a rating boost as if they were playing against a 1700 player?

    plus at the lower levels you often see people who have genuine rating gaps of 200-400 bel difference in these ratings but a 1400 player could easily drop to below 1200 with a bad run.
    Yes.

    Like I said earlier, the admin should not even consider such requests unless a player has been on their rating floor for a long time [and not due to timeout or mass-resignation, either].

    Again, the 1400 player does not even receive a floor unless they hold a rating of 1400+ for X games - in other words, they have to stabilize it there. I'm using X=30 for now, but the number is open to adjustment.
  8. Subscriber shortcircuit
    The Energizer
    13 Jan '09 17:20
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Yes.

    Like I said earlier, the admin should not even consider such requests unless a player has been on their rating floor for a long time [and not due to timeout or mass-resignation, either].

    Again, the 1400 player does not even receive a floor unless they hold a rating of 1400+ for X games - in other words, they have to stabilize it there. I'm using X=30 for now, but the number is open to adjustment.
    How long does the player maintain that floor then, and how many losses does the player in question have to lose before that floor lowers? I still see players dumping 100 or more games due to time out and then come back and pick it back up again. How do you propose to stop this practice?
  9. Standard member Lukerik
    Stick your hands up
    13 Jan '09 20:04
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    The point of ratings is to show how strong a player you are relative to other rated players. Disappearing from the site for a few months generally does not lower your real playing strength by several hundred rating points. Thus, the rating should not go down so far either.

    With rating floors, the game dragger cannot deliberately tank their rating to deprive a hated rival of their due rating points.

    No.
    The point of ratings is to show how strong a player you are relative to other rated players. Disappearing from the site for a few months generally does not lower your real playing strength by several hundred rating points. Thus, the rating should not go down so far either.

    That's an interesting point.

    In OTB play you might have a player who's 'true' strength is 1600, but he regularly gets into time trouble and loses. His grade trundles along at 1400.

    A 1400 rated opponent would have as much chance of defeating him as he would if his 'true' rating were 1400 because he can win on time.

    Here the effect of poor time management has a slightly different effect because people tend to timeout a mass load of games at once.

    If I play someone here who's 'true' rating is 2000 but who's graph is up and down like the bloody Assyrian Empire my expectation of winning is greater than playing a 2000 rater with a flat graph.

    Because of the nature of CC, I would say that the graph in it's entirety reflects the true strength of a player, troughs as much as peaks, because time is an integral part of the game.

    With rating floors, the game dragger cannot deliberately tank their rating to deprive a hated rival of their due rating points.

    I wish people cared enough to do this to me!
  10. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    13 Jan '09 21:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    How long does the player maintain that floor then, and how many losses does the player in question have to lose before that floor lowers? I still see players dumping 100 or more games due to time out and then come back and pick it back up again. How do you propose to stop this practice?
    Once established, the floor is maintained indefinitely. The only way to remove it is to petition those who run the rating system [on this site, that is the admins, or perhaps it could be delegated to say, game mods] to get the floor removed. The request should only be considered if a player has been stuck on their floor for a long time [and this not due to mass-timeouts or mass-resignations; the player should be still active on the site for the time they're on the floor].

    Rating floors don't stop players from dumping 100 games; they just ensure that when that player comes back, their rating will not be too far below their true playing strength. This is to everyone's advantage - nobody likes to play a 1200 player who is really 2000+ strength. With floors in place, he would come back as an 1800 player.
  11. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    13 Jan '09 21:39
    Originally posted by Lukerik
    [b]The point of ratings is to show how strong a player you are relative to other rated players. Disappearing from the site for a few months generally does not lower your real playing strength by several hundred rating points. Thus, the rating should not go down so far either.

    That's an interesting point.

    In OTB play you might have a player who's ...[text shortened]... rival of their due rating points.[/b]

    I wish people cared enough to do this to me![/b]
    There is a world of difference between the OTB player who can't manage time and the corr. player who abandons their entire gameload to focus on other priorities in life. The OTB player is actually managing time within the context of a chess game. The latter is not trying to play any chess at all.

    I mean, I agree that time is part of the game, but there are two different kinds of time management: chess-time management, and life-time management. I would prefer that the former be emphasized and the latter de-emphasized.

    Everyone knows that these 2000s who come back as 1200s are not actually 800 points weaker in strength. The loss of points comes from factors that have absolutely nothing to do with chess strength, or chess-time management.

    Interestingly, the hypothetical OTB 1400 you describe would not have any issues with USCF-style rating floors, because his time trouble would prevent him from establishing a higher floor. His floor would be 1200.
  12. Standard member Lukerik
    Stick your hands up
    13 Jan '09 22:57
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    There is a world of difference between the OTB player who can't manage time and the corr. player who abandons their entire gameload to focus on other priorities in life. The OTB player is actually managing time within the context of a chess game. The latter is not trying to play any chess at all.

    I mean, I agree that time is part of the game, but ther ...[text shortened]... e his time trouble would prevent him from establishing a higher floor. His floor would be 1200.
    I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I do respect what you're saying though as I can see you're just trying to improve the site.

    I have to look at a lot of graphs as a clan leader and anything which interferes with the natural flow will complicate my job. I guess this colours my opinion somewhat, and after all it is quite a niche occupation, and probably isn't what the majority of people use rating for.

    You could probably convince me to support an extension to the tournament entry rating floor.
  13. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    14 Jan '09 00:04
    Originally posted by Lukerik
    I have to look at a lot of graphs as a clan leader and anything which interferes with the natural flow will complicate my job. I guess this colours my opinion somewhat, and after all it is quite a niche occupation, and probably isn't what the majority of people use rating for.
    I would think that rating floors would actually make a clan leader's job easier, since there is no more worry about that 1200 in the other clan being a former 2000 player!

    Ok, Ok, we can disagree. Perhaps I can sell some of the other clan leaders on the virtues of rating floors.
  14. 14 Jan '09 01:03
    Yes. Please adopt rating floors.
  15. Subscriber shortcircuit
    The Energizer
    14 Jan '09 01:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Once established, the floor is maintained indefinitely. The only way to remove it is to petition those who run the rating system [on this site, that is the admins, or perhaps it could be delegated to say, game mods] to get the floor removed. The request should only be considered if a player has been stuck on their floor for a long time [and this not due yer who is really 2000+ strength. With floors in place, he would come back as an 1800 player.
    If they can implement the rating floors as you say, then I can see a definite value to them. I was under the impession that the floors would move as the players' rating move (i.e. lways 200 points below their playing level). My only question would be how to set it so the player who hits their alltime high and then goes legimately tumbling off the cart, back to reaity, is not punished indefinitely to playing over their head because they had a run of good fortune and outcomes.